New Years

It’s that time of year when everyone makes resolutions and bets the over-under on how long they’ll last (hint: go for three weeks. You can’t miss.)

So the last thing I want to blog about is my new year’s resolutions.

I’d rather use this page in a very personal way to acknowledge some of the people who’ve made a huge difference in my life.

Be warned: I consider this the most self-indulgent blog I’ve ever posted, and I will fully and completely understand if a list of the people who were special to me in 2006 is of a matter of utter indifference to you. No problem. We’re still friends. But in the (admittedly not-so-likely) event that you might like to know who really made a difference in my life, read on. I’ll try to make it amusing so that at the very least there’s one or two people on the list that cause you to say something like, “hey, I should look her up next time I need an agent”

By the way, in the effort to make this not seem like the acknowledgements section of my books, I’ve just chosen a few standouts from the year. The staples- friends, family, etc- know who they are and besides, if they don’t, they’re listed in the acknowledgements section of every book I write.

Every single time.

Alex Mandossian: On track to reach his goal of becoming the first person to become a billionaire working from home (usually in pajamas), Alex is not only the marketing guru and teleseminar guru to the stars, he’s also a compassionate, caring man who gives back on a daily basis. This year he invited me to host a 3 part interview series on his “Virtual Seminar Week”. His friendship and counsel mean a great deal to me.

Liz Neporent: If you have one friend in your life like Liz Neporent, you should count yourself not only lucky, but a success.

Dana Carpenter: Witty, lusty, smart, fiercely loyal ,Dana Carpenter routes for me, plugs me, supports me, and is generally the best professional friend you could ever have, all the more unusual in a cutthroat business where no one does any of that. Read her books and give them away as presents.

Coleen O Shea: If you were creating the perfect literary agent from scratch, “price no object”, you would come up with Coleen O’Shea. To call her an “agent” is like calling Warren Buffet an “investor”.

Sue Copp, MS: I could not have written “150 Healthiest Foods on Earth” without her tireless assistance, research and intelligence. And I’m lucky to have her again on “The Real Natural Cures Book” (coming in 2008!)

Chris Loch: Alex Mandossian’s (see above) “gift” to me in the form of one of the best internet marketing departments on the planet

Lora Ruffner: If you ever get a chance to know, work with, spend time with or become friends with Lora Ruffner you will know why she’s on this list.

Howard, Gary, Robin, Artie and Fred: 500 million dollar deal at Sirius? I think you guys are underpaid.

Regina Wilshire: Imagine having your own personal encylopedia of food and nutrition information at your beck and call. All the more remarkable as this personal encylopedia balanced new child, husband and career with my persistent inquiries, all of which were answered promptly, thoroughly and meticulously.

Sonja Pettersen, N.D.: Every time I have to interview her for an article, I smile inside because I know I’m going to walk away inspired and changed in some fundamental way.

Andy Rubman, N.D.: Another tireless giver of impeccable information, given freely, generously and lovingly.

Sarah Hiner: (editor, Bottom Line Daily Health News): Sarah Hiner is to editors what Colleen O Shea is to agents. ‘Nuff said.

Tanya Manicini: (America Online) Not only is she an utter joy to work with, she’s funny as crap. And she has the good taste to take me with her wherever she changes jobs.

Bob Smith: If every five years or so I could make one new friend of the quality of Bob Smith, President of the Genimation Group in Colorado Springs, I would consider myself a very lucky man.


Oliver Becaud: In additioning to transforming my tennis game, Oliver is as close as I’ve ever come to having a same-sex soulmate. If you’re ever in St. Martin, look him up.

Dave Leonardi, MD and Mark Houston, MD: Two different people, two thousand miles apart but they share three qualities: Knowledge, compassion and wit. I’m richer for having both of them in my life. (Dave runs the Leonardi Executive Health Institute in Colorado, Mark is head of the Hypertension Insitute at St. Michael's hospital in Nashville)

Peter Breger: He is my “chosen” brother. And I chose very well indeed.

Christiane Northrup, MD: Dr. Northrup- and her executive vice president Diane Glover- graciously agreed to making time for me and allowed me to interview her for a teleseminar series, even though they didn’t know me from Adam. I was utterly stunned by her grace, wisdom and compassion, not to mention her astonishing breath of knowledge.

Mike Eades, MD and Mary Dan Eades, MD If you know them, you’ll understand. And if you know them, you’ll also know that the phrase “you can count on me” was invented for them.

Ann Louise Gittleman: In the book-writing world where no one has any friends among the “competition”, I have Ann Louise Gittleman. Not only is she one of the smartest people I know, she’s been an ardent supporter of mine since I started in the field, and I am grateful and ever appreciative for her friendship.

JJ Virgin:. Oh, just because.

Anja: One of my writing heroes- Ed McBain- dedicated every one of his later period books to his beloved wife, Dragica. I understand why. When someone changes your life profoundly and deeply, and brings joy and happiness to your every day, you want to dedicate the world to them. Anja- it’s all because of you.

BMI and Glycemic Index: (Not what you think)

Fess up. I’ll bet you already think you know what I’m going to talk about- the connection between the glycemic index of the foods you eat and your BMI.

Right?

Nope.

These two measures- glycemic index and BMI- have something else in common.

They’re both extremely inaccurate and incomplete measures of the thing they purport to be measuring.

What got me thinking about this is today’s New York Times article (quite good) on BMI and it’s limitations. The BMI (body mass index) basically looks at two variables- height and weight. Using these two variables, it calculates a single number which is supposed to tell you if you are overweight, underweight or “just right”. (For those who are interested, underweight is less than 18.5, overweight is between 25 and 29.9 and obese is over 30). The BMI has the advantage of giving you your info in a single number so you don’t have to wade through those old Metropolitan Life “height and weight” tables. The BMI number is equally applicable to either sex.

Anyone see a problem so far?

Let me give you a hint.

Sylvester Stalone, at fighting weight, in the amazing shape he was in for Rocky 19, or whatever that last movie was, has a BMI of over 30.

I haven’t measured him, but I’m willing to bet that Ronnie Coleman, the current Mr. Olympia, is off the charts. Serena and Venus Williams would probably be rated “obese”. So would any well muscled athlete, policeman, Marine and half the personal trainers in America.

Why?

Because BMI does not take into account body composition.

A 5'7" 175 pounder with 3 percent body fat would rate the same BMI as a 5'7" 175 pounder with 33% body fat. So while BMI gives a little bit of an indication of whether or not you’re healthy, it’s only one tiny piece of the equation and misses some of the most important data.

Which brings me to the glycemic index.

Just as the BMI doesn’t take into account body composition, the glycemic index doesn’t take into account portion size. The glycemic index uses a standard portion of 50 grams of “available carbohydrate” (non-fiber) to measure the effect of a food on blood sugar.

That’s great, but irrelevant.

Why? The typical available (non-fiber) carbs in a plate of spaghetti at the Olive Garden is about 200. The typical number of available carbs in a carrot is about 3. So to compare the “glycemic index” of carrots with that of spaghetti (carrots are higher) tells you precisely nothing about the real life effect of the food on your blood sugar.

(For years, a misunderstanding of this measure has caused well-meaning nutritionists to give weight loss clients the rather ridiculous advice to avoid carrots).

That’s why I’ve abandoned glycemic index for the much better glycemic load, which does take into account portion size.

And why I’d love to see a BMI-like measure that took into account body composition.

Is there a moral to the story? Only this: Single numbers- and single facts- rarely tell the whole picture in health.

Just as in the rest of life.

Executive summary? Not so fast..

In my never-ending quest to bring the internecine battles of nutrition science into the context of the rest of American life, some interesting statistics came to my attention today.

They have to do with condoms.

As you may or may not know, our government in it’s infinite wisdom has decided that people who aren’t married shouldn’t have sex, so only sex-education programs that teach abstinence-only receive federal funds.

Guess what. Abstinence only programs do delay the age at which teenagers have sex.

Well that’s good news for the abstinence-only crowd. And if I were making the case for abstinence-only programs onstage, to the “base”, in front of the Republican National Committee, I could leave now to thunderous applause, and everyone would go home happy and self-satisfied, believing that abstinence only programs “work”.

But I would have left out an interesting piece of data.

Those same kids who delay sex slightly because of those abstinence-only programs? They are statistically way more likely to be condom-free once they start having sex. And therefore to have all the things that go with unprotected sex. Like STDs and babies.

Result? The abstinence only sex-education programs don’t do a thing to ultimately create the very thing they’re meant to create- sexual health.

Those of us who read in areas other than nutrition- say politics, or social policy, or education or ethics- see these kinds of conundrums every single day. Which is why I’m continually frustrated by the seeming inability of people to understand that the exact same complexities exist in areas of diet and nutrition and health.

Take red wine. Research shows that a couple of glasses a day may protect your cardiovascular health. If I report that onstage at a winemaker’s convention, I can leave right now. I had you at hello. You’re gonna love me.

But I left something out.

Those nice warm and fuzzy stats? They only apply to men.

In women, two glasses of any kind of alcohol a day raises the risk of breast cancer by 25%.

But wait, there’s more.

That increased risk for women disappears when they get enough folic acid.

Oh these darn statistics, why do they have to be so messy?

Actually, the problem isn’t with statistics, which are always, read my lips, always messy, particularly when you’re describing free-living adults where the number of uncontrolled variables is virtually incalculable. The problem is with the way we Americans like our information- short, sweet, simple and fast.

And, unfortunately, stupid.

We love statements like “bread is bad” and “bananas are good”. We love statements like “vegan diets work” (“work” to do what?) or “high protein diets cause cancer”. Unfortunately, these silly soundbytes never capture the full complexity of the data. And they generally tell us exactly nothing of value. We hear them as headlines on CNN and we repeat them at cocktail parties, and they make us feel good because we think we actually know something, but alas, all we really know is the way some cub reporter interpreted complex data.

So what’s the moral of the story?

Don’t believe everything you read or that you hear on television when it comes to nutrition (or anything else). Read beyond the “executive summary”, especially when the executive summary is five words or less.

Life- like nutrition and statistics- may be messy, but it’s also rich and delicious.

And far more complicated than a five word soundbyte.